the government.  This was the only possible and the only wise policy, but that it involved them in some contradictions in that winter of excitement and confusion is beyond doubt.  History will judge the men and events of 1860 according to the circumstances of the time, but nothing that happened then has any bearing on Mr. Webster’s conduct.  He must be judged according to the circumstances of 1850, and the first and most obvious fact is, that he was not fighting merely to gain time and obtain control of the general government.  The crisis was grave and serious in the extreme, but neither war nor secession were imminent or immediate, nor did Mr. Webster ever assert that they were.  He thought war and secession might come, and it was against this possibility and probability that he sought to provide.  He wished to solve the great problem, to remove the source of danger, to set the menacing agitation at rest.  He aimed at an enduring and definite settlement, and that was the purpose of the 7th of March speech.  His reasons—­and of course they were clear and weighty in his own mind—­proceeded from the belief that this wretched compromise measure offered a wise, judicious, and permanent settlement of questions which, in their constant recurrence, threatened more and more the stability of the Union.  History has shown how wofully mistaken he was in this opinion.

The last point to be considered in connection with the 7th of March speech is the ground then taken by Mr. Webster with reference to the extension of slavery.  To this question the speech was chiefly directed, and it is the portion which has aroused the most heated discussion.  What Mr. Webster’s views had always been on the subject of slavery extension every one knew then and knows now.  He had been the steady and uncompromising opponent of the Southern policy, and in season and out of season, sometimes vehemently sometimes gently, but always with firmness and clearness, he had declared against it.  The only question is, whether he departed from these often-expressed opinions on the 7th of March.  In the speech itself he declared that he had not abated one jot in his views in this respect, and he argued at great length to prove his consistency, which, if it were to be easily seen of men, certainly needed neither defence nor explanation.  The crucial point was, whether, in organizing the new territories, the principle of the Wilmot Proviso should be adopted as part of the measure.  This famous proviso Mr. Webster had declared in 1847 to represent exactly his own views.  He had then denied that the idea was the invention of any one man, and scouted the notion that on this doctrine there could be any difference of opinion among Whigs.  On March 7 he announced that he would not have the proviso attached to the territorial bills, and should oppose any effort in that direction.  The reasons he gave for this apparent change were, that nature had forbidden slavery in the newly-conquered regions, and that the proviso, under such circumstances,